221 Views

The Current State of Social Media Use by Urogynecology Patients

Presenting Author(s)

Catherine E. Seaman, MD (she/her/hers)

Urogynecology fellow
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Astoria, New York, United States

Co-Author(s)

Anna Romanova, MD (she/her/hers)

Urogynecology Fellow
Mount Sinai Hospital
New York, New York, United States
DL

Daniel Lieberman, MD

Urogynecology Fellow
Mount Sinai Hospital
New York, New York, United States
AT

Ann Tran, MD (she/her/hers)

Urogynecology & Plastic Surgery Attending
Mount Sinai Hospital
New York, New York, United States
CA

Charles Ascher-Walsh, MD

Professor
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
New York, New York, United States
LD

Lisa Dabney, MD

Assistant Professor
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
New York, New York, United States
AH

Anne Hardart, MD

Associate Professor
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
New York, New York, United States

Objectives: To determine the frequency of social media use for medical information by urogynecologic patients.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional, single center study of women presenting to Urogynecology specialists in the private and clinic setting. Patients were eligible if they were able to read English or Spanish. They were administered a deidentified 34 item questionnaire designed by the authors to gather basic demographics and information regarding the patients’ use of the internet and social media (SM).

Results: A total of 105 patients were offered surveys and 90 patients completed the survey for a response rate of 86%. Patients self-reported ages of < 40yo in 9%, 41-60 yo in 50%, 61-70yo in 18%, and >70yo in 23% of patients. 55% of patients had Medicare or Medicaid and 45% had private insurance. Forty four percent of patients identified as Hispanic. Race was self identified as black 19%, White 50%, other 20%, and Pacific Islander, American Indian, or Asian in 2% of patients with 7% declining to answer. Patients reported seeing an FPMRS specialist for one or more of the following conditions: Incontinence (49%), OAB (42%), POP (25%), recurrent UTIs (9%), Bladder pain (8%) and other (10%).

Sixty seven percent (n=60/90) of respondents reported using SM with 74% reporting daily use, 21% reporting weekly use. 88.5% of SM users (n=60) reported seeing medical information on SM and 68% of respondents felt the amount of medical information or news they received from SM has increased since the COVID19 Pandemic.

Forty one percent of patients (n=64) reported seeing information on SM regarding their specific FPMRS condition. That information was most frequently seen on Facebook followed by Instagram, other SM sites, Tik Tok, and most rarely on Twitter. Forty two percent of patients reported using SM as a way to learn about their Urogynecologic conditions (n=50). There was a linear relationship between increasing age and decreasing SM use based on Cochran-Armitage test of trend (p < 0.01).

Of the patients who did not use SM, the most common reasons were lack of interest (70%) and that they do not know how (25%) (n=24). Fifty percent of non-users reported they would be interested in using SM to learn more about their Urogynecologic issues.

Conclusions: A majority of patients under the care of a urogynecologist are using SM for medical information and many are using it to learn about their specific urogynecologic condition. This is important in the current era of health care because SM is an important portal for patient education and can help disseminate evidence based health information directly to patients. It is important for physicians to recognize this shift in culture towards SM as a public health tool and to have a voice on this platform.